“It wasn’t about immigration, or Eurabia, or the hadith, or the Eurocrats’ plot against the people. It wasn’t really about ideology or religion. It was all about him… There is an important lesson in the case of Anders Breivik. He killed in the name of Christianity – and yet of course we don’t blame Christians or “Christendom”. Nor, by the same token, should we blame “Islam” for all acts of terror committed by young Muslim males.

That means disposing of the first taboo, and accepting that the problem is Islam. Islam is the problem. To any non-Muslim reader of the Koran, Islamophobia — fear of Islam — seems a natural reaction, and, indeed, exactly what that text is intended to provoke. Judged purely on its scripture — to say nothing of what is preached in the mosques — it is the most viciously sectarian of all religions in its heartlessness towards unbelievers… What is going on in these mosques and madrasas? When is someone going to get 18th century on Islam’s mediaeval ass?

Back then Islam definitely was the problem for Boris, just as he thinks that the right-wing fear-mongering pushed by the likes of his colleagues and friends definitely isn’t the problem now.

The difference between the two cases is not one of principle but of politics.
Boris did not feel implicated by those who blamed Islam for the 7/7 attacks but he does feel implicated by those blaming right-wing politics for the Breivik attacks.

When Islam was in the dock, Boris wanted it detained without charge, but now that right-wing ideology is in the dock, he wants it released, no questions asked.
It’s a sly trick, but it’s one that he shouldn’t be allowed to get away with.

Islamic ideology had questions to answer after 7/7 and the hard-right ideology pushed by certain pundits in the press has questions to answer now.

The Anders Breivik of this world do not emerge from nowhere, just as the English Defence Leagues of this world do not emerge from nowhere. They are fostered by an ideology legitimised by screaming tabloid headlines and the fear-mongering of politicians who really should know better.

And unfortunately whilst Breivik’s actions were the actions of a nutter, he is not the only nutter out there.

Three years ago 54 explosive devices and 12 firearms were found at the home of BNP member Terence Gavan.

Like Breivik, Gavan saw himself as defending his country from Muslim immigration, and like Breivik he was dismissed as a “lone wolf” whose ideology we didn’t need to worry about.

And yet from lone wolves, larger packs are formed.

So whilst we shouldn’t entirely blame right-wing ideologues for helping form those packs, we shouldn’t entirely absolve them from their responsibilities either.

Reader comments

Can we separate right-wing and extremist right-wing ideologies here please? My right-wing ideology includes refusing to subscribe to anyone else’s ideas of ‘culture’ or ‘society’, and is mainly about economic and social liberalisation (which I refuse to allow the state can achieve). I doubt Mr Breivik would appreciate me very much.

And by definition extremist right-wingers tend to be a bit lonesome – because it is very difficult to find people to agree with you when you are that wrong (unlike Islamicists, there is no clear structures for meeting in other than the virtual world of the internet or political parties which for all their sins generally renounce violence). I would not suggest there is a movement, as that implies organisation. Fellow travellers down the path of insanity perhaps?

Watchman
You will find his views were mainstream conservative. But surely that is not the point. You would not kill young labourites and nor I young Tories.
I think Mr Brevik has very similar views to yourself but that doesn’t mean your views are right or wrong,
Stalin may quote Marx or Hegel but doesn’t mean that everything they wrote can be associated to the gulags, or the actions of crusaders with the teaching of christ.
It is up to the individual how we use knowledge and ideas

I thought Boris was going a bit far dismissing any connection between the weird far right mental landscape and this tragedy.I saw on another thread some kind commenter mentioning that as a Conservative my views “Lie on the same continuum”…blimey…
That is like saying ,trying not to over do it on the chips and beers, is on a continuum with morbid anorexia if not a cult of suicidal starvation. By my persistently soft belly I swear it aint !
Where he is also wrong is in conjuring an entirely false equivalence between fundamentalist Islam and loons incorporated . The equivalence is, at least, not proven and we would have to look at numbers attitudes, extent of terrorism and how far it was keyed into commonly held beliefs
I would rather worry about both than neither and if we are to look at hate ideas and their place in a free society lets by all means look at Fundamentalist Islam and the EDL in the same light as if now

You really won’t. I, for instance, have absolutely no desire to resurrect the Knights Templars and drive all immigrants out of the continent of Europe, and such views are as far away from mainstream conservatism as you can get without falling over.

The conservative economic agenda is to create a survival of the fittest jungle (for other people’s children) by completely destroying the welfare state and privatising everything, which will destroy many innocent lives.

Economic conservative terrorists are just as evil and dangerous as the violent ones, if not more. It would be preferable to just be blown away than to be crushed and destroyed slowly by the poverty and humiliation that conservatism inflicts on its victims.

You really won’t. I, for instance, have absolutely no desire to resurrect the Knights Templars and drive all immigrants out of the continent of Europe, and such views are as far away from mainstream conservatism as you can get without falling over.
You clown that was his sad role playing. A little like dressing up in bondage gear
His views echoed the conservative Progress party of low taxation, pro Israel, anti muslim and immigration. He cites constantly Burke and Hayek. He was a member of the progress party which is linked to the UK conservative party..
Idiot.

The point is that neither contemporary Christianity nor “mainstream Conservatism” are associated with an ideology remotely like violent jihad. Islam, by contrast, is.

That is not to say that all, or even most, Muslims subscribe to the same interpretation of jihad, but the number who (to some extent) do is discomfortingly large … and the phrase “tiny minority” does not really do justice to the true position in respect of this threat. In some parts of the world, those prepared to countenance violence towards Jews, infidels, homosexuals or apostates does constitute a (local) majority.

It is far from clear quite what Breivik ‘s ideological position is…… but it hardly appears to be one shared with any significant number of people. More likely – his political rantings simply provided rational (if that’s remotely apt) cover for actions motivated by some psychopathology.

He left the Progressive Party some time ago, because they were not extreme enough presumably (he just stopped paying membership from the reports I’ve seen).

As for the nonsense that he holds the same view as me, Mr Breivik was a collectivist – he believed people’s actions should be determined not by choice but by race – which is the opposite of my every belief. It is (presumably about the only thing) something he has more in common with much left-wing thought, that people are not individual actors but part of a greater whole.

But this ignores one particular key point. Mr Breivik is no more the typical right winger than Mohammed Sadique Khan was a typical British Muslim. You can tell that by the stupid extremes to which they went – regardless of similiarities and differences in views, the fact they interpret their views as allowing violence is surely the key difference. Most, if not all, commentators on this site are democrats – we do not believe we can commit violence because we think it is right. Mr Breivik, Mr Khan and other extremists are not democrats – and I think that distances them from me or any other commentator on here far more than any similiarity in other beliefs links us. Most right-wingers, most left-wingers, most (presumably just about all) liberals, most people in the world if given the choice probably, are democrats – and those who are not are clearly those apart.

It is more than an insult to imply that I am close in my vies to Mr Breivik (even if it were true). It ignores the fact that I disagree with people about what to do, but still agree that democracy is the way to determine the answer.

Not really apt – chosing to dress up in bondage gear is a personal choice, presumably for sexual gratification. Furthermore, there is a fair chunk of the population (who are presumably spread across the political spectrum) who I presume will be offended by that association.

Chosing to misunderstand the history of the Knights Templar and adopt their imagery to try and justify your own views is simply an act in self-delusion.

The trouble I have of bracketing him in with various right wing writers whom you don’t like is that every single jehadi terrorist who quotes from the quran, hadith, or from the anti-imperialist left, can similarly be declared to be part of ‘true’ Islam, or ‘true’ Leftism.

“So whilst we shouldn’t entirely blame right-wing ideologues for helping form those packs, we shouldn’t entirely absolve them from their responsibilities either.”

Weasel words.

It’d be helpful if the author could state who exactly is in this “movement” that Breivik is part of. Do those people consider themselves to be in the same “movement” as Breivik? If not, it’s wrong to co-opt them into one.

The key issue here is about democracy and the rule of law. Whatever you might dislike about society, being someone committed to changing society through the democratic process puts you in a very different bracket to someone who would do likewise with bombs and bullets.

It is obvious that two people may read and believe the same things and form very different judgements about what needs to be done. So there will be Right Wingers who want to distance themselves from Anders (and the others he is now claiming were in the other two cells, and possible support in Poland), in the same way as moderate Muslims feel angry and frustrated at being linked to Jehad and terrorism.
But could this be the dark side f the information revolution? The Arab Spring and UK Uncut are the good side, people motivated and organised by forming networks with like minded people. But what if you are trawling the internet for stories that reinforce your prejudice, worse if they seem to come from reasonable sources, add to the is the ever increasing venom of message boards detailed well in this article yesterday in the Observer http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jul/24/internet-anonymity-trolling-tim-adams and the way being anonymous changes peoples behaviour.
Misinformation + reinforced bigotry + anonymity = some very disturbed individuals.

He self-describes himself as right-wing Christian conservative. That does not mean that everyone else who is a right-wing Christian conservative is the same as him. Just the same as Timothy McVeigh claimed to be an American patriot does not tar every patriotic American with the same brush. Although, some of his views are extreme many of them are just bog-standard right wing talking points that can be read any day on the Spectator, Mail and Telegraph website. Therefore, there is nothing unique about Breivik, other than a mind so warped to take revenge on those whom he considered his enemies. Many of those who will attempt to spin the tragedy away from those who cater to that audience would last week have agreed with Mr Breivik on so many issues. So, the problem is not in the painfully decent Norwegian society. The fault lies in the worldview of paranoid made up facts that coexists with the almost perpetual sense of victimhood that exists in so many of the right.

Where’s the leadership comming from? Casually racist myth’s are being allowed to fourish, I don’t think labour understand just how many working class are happy enough to read the express or mail as much as the mirror, and that dos’nt help matters. Anything real and existential that could lead to more bnp or tory support needs to be addressed and dealt with. And the myth’s need to be debunked, and loudly.

To be fair though, modern Right Wing ideology is broadly based on misanthropy. It appears to an endless diatribe of hate and mindless scapegoating. Everything is the fault of the unemployed, the immigrant, the sick, the poor, the old, the single mother, the feckless etc. Of course, the other ‘boo figures’ are ‘public services’ and the people who provide them and ‘Big Government’ as well.

Is it any wonder that social misfits and inadequate people are attracted to an ideology that fundamentally looks down at everyone else in society as sees them as weak and the enemy? I am not suggesting that ‘everyone’ who is attracted to Right Wing ideology is going to end up a terrorist, but is it any wonder that sociopaths find this repeated message of hate especially comforting?

Almost every Right Wing blogg is covered with this shite, repeatedly churned out, day after day, after week after week. Everything that is wrong with society is that of the Left and their insistence on attempting to make things better for normal everyday people. So who takes a bullet for the Right Wing? Why the Left on an island, of course, the enemy, the fifth columnists; those of us that believe those weak er than us deserve our support, those of us who think that ‘Government’ can make a positive difference. Slaughtered in their dozens by nutter with a big fucking gun. This guy didn’t just get that from out of thin air, we have been feeding people like him with this since every nasty little fucker could buy a dial up modem.

People have remarked that ‘The Right’ has a stranglehold on the Internet and they are pushing the agenda. Perhaps they are correct; perhaps it is because those of us on the Left have enough of a life that we do not hate enough to spend all day posting the same bile filled crap every day.

People have remarked that ‘The Right’ has a stranglehold on the Internet and they are pushing the agenda. Perhaps they are correct; perhaps it is because those of us on the Left have enough of a life that we do not hate enough to spend all day posting the same bile filled crap every day.

Having just read the rest of that post, I beg to differ.

For information, right-wing thinking (as opposed to right-wing reactionaries, who are just dickheads) is about how to make things better, not how to oppress people. Same as left-wing thinking (as opposed to left-wing reactionaries). Just because we disagree on the means, does not mean we disagree on the aims…

“His views echoed the conservative Progress party of low taxation, pro Israel, anti muslim and immigration. He cites constantly Burke and Hayek. He was a member of the progress party which is linked to the UK conservative party..”

He also wore clothes. ZOMG anybody who wears clothes is evil! We all have to cast off our clothing and become naturists!

[29] the stats you link to are post London and Madrid (>200 deaths and many more seriously injured all told) – but surely the point of the OP is that Anders Breivik’s actions are somehow part of a SYSTEMATIC school of right wing thought (and action).

Leaving aside the fact there has been virtually no terrorism in Norway (since WW2) I am struggling to identify which tradition AB belongs to – today for example we have eve heard about tenuous links to Mel Philips and even Jeremy Clarkson?

If we look at the world scene for terrorism we can probably agree that a certain form of individual lunacy drives it, yet there is an equally worrying religious orthodoxy (albeit in a perverted form) that continues to bolster these extreme forms of political expression in many parts of the world.

Just because we disagree on the means, does not mean we disagree on the aims…

Wait a minute though Watchman, I doubt ‘we’ (i.e. Left and Right) want much of the same things. I bet that you and me have fundamental differences in how we would want to see society develop too.

You could have said that type of thing about fifty years ago, but any idea that the ‘Left/Right’ divide are actually attempting derive the same solutions but argue about the road map to the promised land doesn’t hold water.

When you look at the fundamentals of what ‘we’ both want (as opposed to how we might dress things up), you see pretty stark differences with quite different outcomes, too. I accept that does not necessarily mean that either of us is a bad person, but let us not pretend that we share a common bond, in political terms, because we do not. Don’t get me wrong, it is cool that we have different goals, but if, in two hundred years time we both come back via some kind of witchcraft and the Left or Right have prevailed and we are living under on system, one of us is going to very happy and the other is going to hate the outcome.

I can assure you that I do not share a common purpose(!) with anyone who would force the mentality or physically disabled to Dutch auction themselves in a labour market, for example.

A table which basically shows that almost all European terrorism is perpetrated by ETA or other Basque separatists.

You could have said that type of thing about fifty years ago, but any idea that the ‘Left/Right’ divide are actually attempting derive the same solutions but argue about the road map to the promised land doesn’t hold water.

The gap between left and right is almost immeasurably narrower now than it was 50 years ago.

And the debate about both terms is still getting increasingly irrelevant to the present, let alone the future, in the UK. The ‘left-right’ divide is forged of the stuff of industrialism, and we are not an industrial nation any more. The daily experience of real life for 80%+ of the country is not making boxes, it’s providing a service to someone; both Left and Right are still signally failing to respond to this in any adequate way.

See here and here for summaries of why. More detailed analysis in the original articles that these entries summarise.

A list that divides into three basic categories: nationalists/separatists (IRA, ETA,PKK), Islamists (the overwhelming majority),

Hmm., I think I see what you have done here.

You identify the first group as nationalists/separatists, then Islamists, why the distinction? Surely most terrorists (the vast majority, in fact) are Nationalists or separatists? I mean surely the Taliban in Afghanistan are fighting against invading forces, no? Surely the Palestine and the Iraqi conflict are the same?

In Palestine we have a group of people who feel they were shunted off their land (rightly or wrongly) by interlopers, but what category would you place them? If the latter, then why? Surely they, like the Chechen only want the land that they think of as theirs back in their own hands?

Even the 7/7 bombers committed terrorism against what they saw (again rightly or wrongly) an invasion of one Country by another. Lockerbie, a revenge attack for the shooting down of a airliner. Now, you could try and dress it up one way or another, but if that is not straight forward terrorism that we see from ETA, IRA, ANC et al, then what is it? What makes it ‘Islamic’?

It is dangerous to label extremist right-wingers “insane”. The point lying behind the article is that their beliefs are reasoned, and they are reasoned based on popular “truths” bandied about in the tabloid media, political soundbites, and pub arguments.

As long as politicians and mass media pander to such conservative stereotypes – which are far easier to digest in the limited cognitive capacity of the human mind than the vast, complex and incomprehensible nature of social reality – then we will continue to find straight white men aged 18-45 who inexplicably feel that they have somehow drawn the short straw. Economically, they may have, like everyone else who is not solvent; but when questions are asked, the powers-that-be inevitably target the immigrant, rather than the system which caused the immigrant to move, and the complainant to feel aggrieved.

That is why right wing ideology is dangerous: it is reductive and overly-simplistic, and therefore prone to generalisation. I had hoped the original article would articulate that, but it fell unfortunately fell slightly short of the mark.

An unpleasant amount of innuendo in this article. I assume the blurring of the lines between conservatives and racist extremists in this piece is not accidental. You even manage to get the Daily Mail in there. Well done you. By the last line, the blame in pinned on the ‘right-wing’, not even the ‘far-right’ or the ‘ultra-right’. Shameful. Face it, Breivik’s political views have nothing whatsoever in common with those of Boris Johnson or any other conservative, classical liberal or libertarian.

“Islamic ideology had questions to answer after 7/7 and the hard-right ideology pushed by certain pundits in the press has questions to answer now.”

Let’s define our terms first shall we? What qualifies as a ‘hard-right ideologue’ these days? Are we talking Hayek and Friedman or Griffin and Goebells? Any definition which includes all of these people under the same label is less than useless. And what questions should they answer? I don’t think even yer hated tabloid newspapers preach Jihad and terrorism, so the comparison with Islamism is a bit of stretch. And while I can’t stand Melanie Phillips, bringing her into it smacks of blaming Paul McCartney for the Manson killings. You can’t pick your fans.

“So whilst we shouldn’t entirely blame right-wing ideologues for helping form those packs”

No, and we can’t entirely blame Lord Glassman for his remarks about reaching out to EDF-supporters either, but Milliband needs to fire him as an advisor, immediately, or be caught up in the undertow of this event.

The gap between left and right is almost immeasurably narrower now than it was 50 years ago.

Are you sure about that, Tim? What do you mean? In terms of the front benches of the two main political Parties? I think you mean the gap between the hard (or perhaps the harsh) Right and the soft Right (epitomised by New Labour) is no doubt narrower than the gap between say the Mail on Sunday vs the Observer, but does that mean that Party politics has changed rather than the ideology itself.

The fact that Ed Milliband feels that the Country’s disabled citizens need a good kicking for their insolence is hardly an indicator of where political pivot of Britain is.

@22 flyingrodent: ’22. flyingrodent
Old Holborn: He attacked left wing Politicians and future left wing Politicians.

“Future left wing politicians” is certainly one way of euphemising “teenagers”.’

Indeed. There is another thread here on LC, “Support our campaign for political education for youngsters”, about engaging teenagers in civil society. I don’t agree with the prescription proposed by the authors but I believe that young people should understand that their participation is welcome. And that participation is not compulsory.

The teenagers attending a summer camp organised by a political party are simply teenagers. Perhaps some will get involved in party politics, but you can’t make any assumptions. When I come across a name that I remember from my youth, that person is typically involved in a local civic or environmental campaign.

@40. Barrington Womble: “And while I can’t stand Melanie Phillips, bringing her into it smacks of blaming Paul McCartney for the Manson killings.”

Our biases, of course, lead us to assume that John Lennon wrote _Helter Skelter_. McCartney only wrote fluffy love songs and Lennon was the edgy political thinker. Biases direct us towards basic attribution errors, which may be the author of a song or the motives of a killer.

Watchman
He was a man who believed in low taxation, anti immigration, and had a strong belief in Market values. he despised the state, hence the bomb. Read what he said and who he quotes. Mill, Hayek, and Burke. Extremists ?
Enoch Powell believed in getting rid of all immigrants, even those who had settled. He was one of Thatchers heroes. Was he an extremist ?
Pinochet shot many innocent unarmed leftist activists, many young students.
Was he an extremist ?
Anyway that wasn’t the point, even if he held the same views as yourself does it matter. the guy was insane. the cumbrian taxi driver was a liberal democrat , it doesn’t mean all lib dems are killers.
“Most right-wingers, most left-wingers, most (presumably just about all) liberals, most people in the world if given the choice probably, are democrats – and those who are not are clearly those apart”
But couldn’t anyone in those groups carry out the same actions. A psychotic is a psychotic whatever political path he takes.
For instance the trigger for his actions may have been rejection form a left leaning girl. We don’t know.
Many serial killers have moderate political views. Ted Bundy was a left leaning republican.

Sorry Tim about the bondage joke, you just get the feel about you, Sorry

32 – Oh, and further ‘proves’ that the “left” is 104 times as prone to terrorism as the “right”.
That is if you class organisations such as the IRA as left.
As an ex serviceman , most IRA men were conservative catholics who were small business men.
I doubt many would vote labour.

If we’re talking about influences then it’s worth mentioning the National Socialist black metal scene in Norway, who are explicitly Neo-Nazi and have been bubbling away nicely for the past couple of decades. Although the wider Black metal scene in general tends to be anti-Christian.

‘If we look at the world scene for terrorism we can probably agree that a certain form of individual lunacy drives it, yet there is an equally worrying religious orthodoxy (albeit in a perverted form) that continues to bolster these extreme forms of political expression in many parts of the world.’

Not just religious orthodoxy though. What characterises terrorists is that they all believe in some force (god, race, history) so great that individual human beings can be sacrificed in its name.

Thanks for that. It appears to mean that Corsican fireworks are terrorist attacks. In other words there is no evaluation of consequences, there is no evaluation of intent or impact even. In fact there is a continual lack of statistical seriousness.

If you or I were to suggest that the French statistics were wrong or unweighted or whatever, then this would be the last day to do it.

Blaming any kind of particular ideology is a mistake. Northern Ireland’s troubles were as much political as religious, and no religious ideology underlies Spanish regional separatists or the Greek anarchists…not to mention FARC or the radical Serbian movements. Even in the Middle East, the root cause of most of the conflicts is land, not religion.

[50] “Not just religious orthodoxy though”, no, of course not, but the point of the OP was an effort to relate Anders Breivik’s actions to a shared form of political activity (that would have required planning and shared approval).

My point, simply, was that if we consider the global dimensions of acts of terrorism many, if not most fall within a religious paradigm, or at least a politicised brand of religion that continues to promote the most types of violence (suicide bombers, etc).

If we take those atrocities that most in the UK will remember most vividly (7/7 & 9/11) it is impossible to imagine that somewhere in the background, prior to these events, a religious ‘Mr Big’ did not have some influence in the way these attacks played out (perhaps involving training camps, or shared intelligence and so on).

Can the same be said of AB – I am sure a few right wing extremists will be nodding approvingly but the killings themselves (from the perspective of extreme right groups) would have been a bonus rather than an orchestrated strategy in my opinion.

The important thing is that even if Mr Brevik was inspired by criticisms of Islam made by right wing writers/ politicians, it neither affects the validity of those opinions nor places any moral responsibility upon the writers and politicians themselves. The aims may be legitimate even if the means used by some with the intention of achieving them are not and responsibility for the use of such means remains entirely with the perpetrator. The horror of the events in Norway seems to make rational consideration more difficult but if you examine a far less emotive instance, this seems quite obvious. Could anyone seriously maintain that Charlie Gilmour’s swinging from the cenotaph or Edward Woolard’s throwing a fire extinguisher from a building has any bearing on the argument against tuition fees? The two strike me as similar in principle.

What is also rather irritating is the manner in which left wingers commenting on this issue feel able to reject arguments made by Ed West, Andrew Gilligan and whoever else without bothering to refute them. Is this out of arrogance or fear?

@62 With his Christian leanings I didn’t think he would have had that much to do with the NSBM part of the black metal scene, or indeed any of the black metal scene – but exposure to their views and ideas? I imagine on racial supremacy and antipathy toward Islam though he and the NSBM’s wouldn’t be that far apart.

Well the first half of his manifesto bangs on about “cultural Marxists” and their “political correctness” being used to collaborate with Islam in it’s ‘invasion’ of the west. Now if you were a tooled-up manic out to act on your paranoid world view, would you first attack the invading enemy, or the traitors in your midst that’s assisting them?

Dreadful OP in my opinion. Starting off with a link to the spurious LC hatchet smear on Melanie Phillips, then quoting a weak Guardian article claiming links to the EDL, and then calling the poxy Daily Star ”our tabloid press”. Does anyone even read that rag or take it seriously? And then a link to the Jerusalem Post.
If you go scratching around like that you can come up with ”a movement” perhaps, but it’s a pretty shaky one. This is the internet and the whole world is linked by a few clicks.
There is some kind of ”Eurabian Nighmare movement” if you insist on calling it that, but if you want to talk about that it would be better not to be so lazy and looking for cheap points to score.
If you want to talk about the EDL and this killer, a better place to start would be in discussing what the EDL leader said on Newsnight tonight and trying to analise that.
The EDL are clearly at the very lumpen end of society and are mostly thick blokes who get taken in by all the ”Eurabia” stuff, but they really arent much more dangerous than that IMO.

Okay, I think we need to analyse what’s going on here. This is a Shock Doctrine moment, like 911. People on the authoritarian Left, like the writers here at LC, have rightly identified this as a moment when circumstances can be used to further their agenda; in this case, quite obviously, a chance to stifle oppositional voices they loathe and oppositional movements and social formations. This is not as we know a particular tactic of any political grouping- Right, Left, everybody will do it if they can. Riding a wave of anger and fear is a strategy that goes back to antiquity. We have seen it in the period following 9/11, most obviously.

There are undoubtedly many on the Left who want oppositional movement proscribed by the State. They would also like right wing voices silenced, or at least cowed. Combined with the Murdochalypse, it is clear that many see this moment as a once in a lifetime opportunity to impose greatly increased state controls over speech, in the media and on the internet. We already have the Great Firewall (CleandFeed) and the commissarat (IWF) in place to impose arbitrary censorship. Adding “hate” sites to the list of blocked web content will be very easy. And that is, I think, what we’re going to see being demanded as this matter develops. The State will certainly welcome the excuse to tame the internet; they have a long list of things they want wiped off it, from politics to porn.

So, dangerous times we live in. To professional activists like the Liberal Conspirators, this is a gift and an opportunity. The chance to wrest control so absolutely of the political discourse may not come again for a very long time.

The missing word is ‘fascism’; Breivik has acted out neo-fascist ‘propaganda by deed’ and it is this that now requires the most scrutiny. The fact that he cites a hotchpotch of right-wing, libertarian and anti-Islamic literature is a cause for concern but not in itself the first cause, if this is indeed what the OP is insinuating. Wait for the investigation to see what or who else was involved. Guilt by association is the Oliver Kamm/Mel P/Harry’s Place tactics and we should be smarter and more analytic than that at this time. Independently of this, Mel P’s claim that mainstream democratic society should be demonised as ‘cultural Marxism’ was always a daft and pernicious rhetoric; a period of reflection is in order.

I think it’d be ridiculous to say that Mel et al are responsible for violence in Norway.

On the other hand, it’s entirely reasonable to say that hard questions have to be asked about what, exactly, they think it is that they’re doing. The basic message that Mel, Gates of Vienna, Mark Steyn, Robert Spencer and countless others have been getting out front and square for a decade is this…

I’m not saying that it’s imperative that we retaliate with extreme violence against the vast Marxist/Islamist conspiracy to invade Europe, massacre and dominate its citizens. I’m just saying that doing nothing in the face of certain genocide and enslavement for you and yours is unacceptable. But I’m certainly not advocating violence in the face of imminent, inevitable death or dhimmitude.

Waving their hands and claiming this is nothing to do with them won’t wash. They’ve been putting this horseshit out there in plain view for years, and it’s perfectly legitimate to ask them to explain why, exactly, they feel their message is utterly unrelated to the killings in Norway.

Their explanations thus far – that, like, they’re being oppressed by the Marxist Jihad-lovers, man, and that they’re in many ways the real victims here – won’t cut it, since it’s just a reassertion of the same ludicrous conspiracy theory.

Looking at some of what he said , there is no easy way to say this, the problem is that there are some nuggets of truth.There is a whole section devoted to a sort of protocols of Muhammed above which is this quote.

“Before we can do anything, there must be a we.”
( John Laws)

The global fantasising is so much gobbledygook but In a national context and thinking of the imagined community of England this is something I have often said, deploring, as I do, the atomisation of the country, the tearing at its fibres by the state and,I cannot deny it , the corrosive effects of uncontrolled immigration.

Not a very comfortable position right now but there it is. Are we no longer allowed to be broadly supportive of Israel and to feel it is the object of quite unreasonable coverage in the West ? Recent events show quite clearly how wrong the presumed equivalence between an open democracy and hated dictatorships has bee . Are we supposed to submit to the progressive multicultural experiment because to oppose it rhetorically is soemthing found in an online gibber vomit ?

…the corrosive effects of uncontrolled immigration… Are we no longer allowed to be broadly supportive of Israel and to feel it is the object of quite unreasonable coverage in the West? …Are we supposed to submit to the progressive multicultural experiment because to oppose it rhetorically is soemthing found in an online gibber vomit? That is not reasonable and will not happen.

Well, that’s certainly one possible response to the question “Could you guys please refrain from intentionally disseminating hateful, race-baiting propaganda based on inflammatory lies for five fucking minutes, so that we can get this whole far-right terrorism thing in perspective”.

“One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory.”
Houari Boumedienne, then President of Algeria in 1974.

I’m not inferring anything from this, any more than left-wing posters are inferring anything when they point out that Breivik cited Melanie Phillips or didn’t like multiculturalism. I just thought it would be interesting to cite. After all, Boumedienne was a Muslim, and Muslims don’t tell lies, unlike us. Personally, I adore Islam, and I have done for several days now.

Could anyone seriously maintain that Charlie Gilmour’s swinging from the cenotaph or Edward Woolard’s throwing a fire extinguisher from a building has any bearing on the argument against tuition fees?

Funnily enough that is exactly what the Daily Hate et al attempted (and arguably succeeded) to do. After mostly peaceful demonstrations, the Right demonised the peaceful marches and protesters by pitching Charlie Gilmour’s antics onto the front page of every newspaper in the Country. Not only that of course, but the legitimate protesters found themselves kettled by the filth with the actions of the fringe being used as justification.

Furthermore, people like the odious Phillips delighted in the fact that twelve-year-old children were kettled as a result of a thrown fire extinguisher as well.

[72] “Could anyone seriously maintain that Charlie Gilmour’s swinging from the cenotaph or Edward Woolard’s throwing a fire extinguisher from a building has any bearing on the argument against tuition fees? Funnily enough that is exactly what the Daily Hate et al attempted (and arguably succeeded) to do” – is there any difference between that, and linking the likes of Jeremy Clarkson to Anders Breivik?

For some reason several commentators have also seized onto Melanie Philips – I hope they can understand why those of us toward the liberal end of the authoratarian/liberal axis feel very uncomfortable with the idea of censorship, especially censorship of political idea.

Let Mel say what she wants to say, in the same way that religious extremists should be free to expound their views, however offensive to some – censorship is about as effective as smacking children (to cite a recent LC thread).

the whole norway nutter/mad mel stuff is similar to the mason/beatles, though to be fair the beatles never recored a song on the white album called ‘That Sharon Tate, She Is Really Asking For It’ where as mad mel….

Let Mel say what she wants to say, in the same way that religious extremists should be free to expound their views, however offensive to some – censorship is about as effective as smacking children (to cite a recent LC thread).

Even if that means people all over Europe become consumed with hatred and the odd Brevik breaks free from the pack and wastes 100 people?

I understand what you are saying regarding censorship, but was it worth the deaths of 90 kids in a campsite to ‘prove’ how Liberal we are? At what point do we allow this type of thing go on? Most of the stuff we read is pretty harmless and causes a bit of a stir with most right minded people. However, some of this stuff is designed to appeal to the paranoid fantasies of the ‘survivalists and associated nutters’ among us. These people are going out of their way to convince us we are under siege from Islam and Marxist ideology. I agree that there are times when some Muslims do everyone else no favours in this respect and it is perfectly legitimate to highlight and report the fact. However, what we are witnessing is the complete saturation of stuff that is simply not true or at ‘best’ highly exaggerated. No matter what we think of ‘freedom of speech’ publishing outright lies to further an agenda is downright wrong and in some cases positively dangerous.

[29] the stats you link to are post London and Madrid (>200 deaths and many more seriously injured all told) – but surely the point of the OP is that Anders Breivik’s actions are somehow part of a SYSTEMATIC school of right wing thought (and action).

It doesn’t measure deaths, it measures instances, ergo London and Madrid wouldn’t make a vast difference to the overall fact.

I don’t see how that’s the point of the OP at all, the overarching point of the OP is; ‘boris johnson is a gobshite’ and ‘why do violent Christians represent only themselves yet violent Islamists represent 20% of the earth’s population’

But if you do want a systematic school of violent right wing thought and action;

Let Mel say what she wants to say, in the same way that religious extremists should be free to expound their views, however offensive to some.

Agree entirely. That’s not the same as exempting her from criticism and it’s perfectly fair to point out the logical conclusions of the arguments she makes, and to invite her and all the other loons to come up with a response that isn’t a lot of paranoid bollocks.

On the part of Mel and the other Counter-Jihadomentals, it’s long since ceased to be surprising or believable that they always “accidentally” mistake criticism for censorship. They trot that line out so often that we can now dispense with intellectual charity and assume that they use that tactic 100% of the time as a way of bullshitting and evading the points being put to them. Now, more than ever, they should be called out for their noxious output and asked to account for it.

[77] “why do violent Christians represent only themselves yet violent Islamists represent 20% of the earth’s population” – as far as I know, no clear evidence has emerged that Anders Breivik belonged to the kind of murderous cell epitomised by the lIkes of the IRA – you know, a small group of like minded individuals with a penchant for extreme violence to achieve political ends.

In fact the main links highlighted on LC seem to be with Top Gear and a Daily Mail columnist, as well as our own comedy goons, the good old EDL.
Now I know a lot of people don’t like Mel P, for example, but to the best of my knowledge she has never loaded her self down with explosive before walking into a crowded market place?

If certain groups do have a link with Breivik in the planning and commissioning of this atrocity then I will be the first to call for those who are responsible to be brought before the law – but I don’t expect Bo-Jo to be one of them.

Let Mel say what she wants to say, in the same way that religious extremists should be free to expound their views, however offensive to some – censorship is about as effective as smacking children (to cite a recent LC thread).

The problem isn’t her saying whatever she wants, the problem is externalization, she and others like her force society to bear the costs of their actions whilst they personally reap the benefits.

As Richard Peppiatt told Richard Desmond when he’d finally had enough of making things up;

“The lies of a newspaper in London can get a bloke’s head caved-in down an alley in Bradford.’ If you can’t see that words matter, you should go back to running porn magazines.”

Are you sure about that, Tim? What do you mean? In terms of the front benches of the two main political Parties? I think you mean the gap between the hard (or perhaps the harsh) Right and the soft Right (epitomised by New Labour) is no doubt narrower than the gap between say the Mail on Sunday vs the Observer, but does that mean that Party politics has changed rather than the ideology itself.

No, 50 years ago the left were calling for a defined alternative to western free-market capitalism – inspired by Eastern bloc communism. No serious voice on the left now calls for the workers to own the means of production. In economic terms the left and right disagree on matters of detail rather than degree. In social terms too, the right have long since come across to what 50 years ago would have been considered extremely left-wing views on divorce, religion, homosexuality and ‘culture’ as a whole.

That is if you class organisations such as the IRA as left.

No, the IRA (or rather its associated leavings like ‘real’ ‘continuity’ etc) are classified in that list under ‘separatist’.

[77] “why do violent Christians represent only themselves yet violent Islamists represent 20% of the earth’s population” – as far as I know, no clear evidence has emerged that Anders Breivik belonged to the kind of murderous cell epitomised by the lIkes of the IRA – you know, a small group of like minded individuals with a penchant for extreme violence to achieve political ends.

You haven’t answered the question, but what comprises ‘clear evidence’? Given that the eponymous ‘links to Al Qaeda’ line is nearly always swallowed without qualification.

“Ive been perplexed about this all day due to how serious the nature of being linked to a political mass murderer is (it’s no small thing), and now the penny has finally dropped on who the most likely person is, who ‘Richard’ the English mentor of Anders Breivik is.

EDL’s financier and political controller Alan Lake.”

In fact the main links highlighted on LC seem to be with Top Gear and a Daily Mail columnist,

I haven’t seen any references to Top Gear (apart from by you in another thread) but if you say so.

i think Norway has handled the situation well as we did in after 7/7.
Blame the individual/s.
Find out the complete story.
Stay united as left and right against political violence.
The Norweigian PM has not used the killings as a political tool, nor his opponents.
They are not bring in Draconian measures to limit freedom of speech.

The problem with the left is the pedestal it puts itself on – always on the “right” side of the argument, how every problem can be solved with more of other people’s money, and how its own traditional supporters are never part of the problem – always portrayed as victims.

There are undoubtedly many on the Left who want oppositional movement proscribed by the State. They would also like right wing voices silenced, or at least cowed. Combined with the Murdochalypse, it is clear that many see this moment as a once in a lifetime opportunity to impose greatly increased state controls over speech, in the media and on the internet. We already have the Great Firewall (CleandFeed) and the commissarat (IWF) in place to impose arbitrary censorship. Adding “hate” sites to the list of blocked web content will be very easy. And that is, I think, what we’re going to see being demanded as this matter develops. The State will certainly welcome the excuse to tame the internet; they have a long list of things they want wiped off it, from politics to porn.

Ian, this is right wing paranoia.
If anyone wants the internet closed down is Murdoch (or at least limited to the rich), social conservatives, neo conservtaives who want their own bigotry masked by blaming useless organisations such as the EDL and journalists who fear for their jobs.
Please give me the references, to the leftist who wants to limit the internet. Sunny wants a clampdown, I doubt it he needs the money

As for the idea pf sites that show how to make explosives, show snuff movies or peado sites even the most libertarian would baulk at those been freely accessed.
I would imagine there would be cross political support for that. i cannot see conservative voters voting for a party that wanted those sites.
Know you people Ian , amy be talk to them at the next Tory fete your at.

Sites that show how to make explosives? Sure, legal. Snuff movies? Urban legend. Paedo sites? Illegal to produce, so irrelevant to censorship issues. That is, it’s not illegal to show photos of people being murdered, but since it is illegal to murder people, you don’t need to censor, because the production itself is illegal.

So no, there is no need to censor any of those types of sites.

As to who wants censroship, there is a constant drumbeat from the reactionary wings of both left and right. On the right, is the legacy of the Mary Whitehouse tendency; on the Left is a powerful coalition ranging from the deranged wing of feminism to Mumsnet. It was the “left” Labour Party who brought in the recent lunatic law against “underage” cartoons, for instance, not “Murdoch”.

“Left” and “Right” tend to be astonishingly similar when it comes to puritanical issues. Anyway, in this case it is clear that the “Left” see an opportunity to censor “right wing” political speech and are pushing for it.

@ 88 “Anyway, in this case it is clear that the “Left” see an opportunity to censor “right wing” political speech and are pushing for it.”

“Clear” how exactly? Name one elected politician, paid opinion columnist, hell anyone of any real-world standing (as opposed to anonymous internet commentators who could easily be right-wing trolls – I’m sure you can dredge up a few of those), who has actually called for censorship on the basis of this case. After all, if “the Left” with a capital L is “pushing for it”, then some actual left-wing people must have actually pushed for it, somewhere other than inside your head. Mustn’t they?

“A man may pass from radical to conservative in 40 years without changing a single opinion”

— can’t remember, school was a long time ago.

All you’re doing is restating the long-understood political wisdom that the future has a noticeable liberal bias. As time passes, things which used to be new become normal and things which used to be normal become old hat.

One thing we’re getting pretty good at doing these days is making sure that the direction of motion is towards greater efficiency in the market-place, i.e. less people being removed from the pool of economic contribution for the terrible crime of being gay or black or female.

‘Top gear’ was an oblique reference to Jeremy Clarkson, or at least Sunny’s bizarre inclusion of Jezza’s views on the union jack, and well you know it?

I am not avoiding any question – I am just not sure that Anders Breivik was part of anything, other than belonging to a tradition of individuals who are only dimly aware of what political thought actually means.

If AB was the latest in a long line of right wing assassins seeking to impose a new reich by violent means, then yes perhaps there might be a case for insisting on greater condemnation from right wing groups seeking to bring about political change by legitimate means.

No, 50 years ago the left were calling for a defined alternative to western free-market capitalism – inspired by Eastern bloc communism. </B.

Perhaps, Tim, but if we were being honest, I doubt that they were any significant moves in that way, not among the mainstream. Okay, some on the Left wanted to achieve that through Socialism and even Eastern Bloc, but as a means to an end, but not a means in itself.

The original point was that Watchman argued that the mainstream Left and Right basically want the same things, but we just argue the different methodologies to achieve that common goal. I would certainly agree with him that fifty or even forty years ago that would have been true, it certainly stopped being true thirty years ago.

The Tory/Labour Parties of fifty years ago believed in roughly the same thing. Both were committed, more or less, to Nationalised industries, council housing, the welfare State, State education etc, even if they wanted those things to run differently. They both wanted everyone to have decent, well paying jobs, decent education, decent employment rights, decent housing. Remember the Tory Party built quarter of a million council houses a year during one Parliament. Crucially both parties believed in full employment and that was a driver for the economic policies of both Parties.

That all stopped during the Thatcher years however, because Thatcherism was about different things. Now, I would argue that we on the ‘Left’ want different things that you on the Right want. Much of the Labour Party have shifted to the Right, I would agree with that and there are places were parts of the Tory Party have been dragged to the Left in social terms, but I would maintain that across the board the Left and Right (as distinct from the Labour and Tory parties) want things that are largely incompatable.

Not at anything ‘Right of Centre’ just at nasty pieces written by what appears to be nasty people.

I will happily stand by any of the opinions I have written regarding Tory supporters and will openly explain why I believe them, if in the extremely unlikely event I go on a shooting rampage, killing dozens on Tories in the process.

and how its own traditional supporters are never part of the problem – always portrayed as victims.

Utter fucking garbage. The ‘Left’ never attack their own supporters? You have to be fucking joking? The ‘Left’ have been on the necks of ‘traditional supporters’ (I assume you mean Labour supporters) ever since I can remember on any number of issues and became extremely unpopular and unelectable because of it too.

This is exactly the type of thing I despise you cunts for. I assume this is what you mean by ‘right of centre’ views? ‘Right of centre’ being a euphemism for ‘making shite up that it would nice if it was true, but it isn’t so lets just pretend it is anyway’.

‘Top gear’ was an oblique reference to Jeremy Clarkson, or at least Sunny’s bizarre inclusion of Jezza’s views on the union jack, and well you know it?

And as you well know the reason Sunny highlighted Clarkson’s claims is due to the fact they’re part of a web of half truths and outright fabrications regarding flags that are intended to feed into the victim complex the right and far right thrive on.

I am not avoiding any question – I am just not sure that Anders Breivik was part of anything, other than belonging to a tradition of individuals who are only dimly aware of what political thought actually means.

If AB was the latest in a long line of right wing assassins seeking to impose a new reich by violent means, then yes perhaps there might be a case for insisting on greater condemnation from right wing groups seeking to bring about political change by legitimate means.

As you, Jim, acknowledge that hatred occurs. Orwell records it in _Homage to Catalonia_. Liberal socialists, liberals and authentic anarchists need to be able to rub together closely. If we don’t do it, the hard left — by Stalin or Trotsky — will undermine us or screw election results.

To be honest, I was thinking in more recent terms, not just Frank field, BTW.

The Labour movement have campaigned for lots of things that many ‘Labour supporters’ would show complete apathy for or downright hostility towards; Racism, homophobia and sexism being the most obvious examples. When people on the Left use terms like ‘stamp out homophobic attitudes’, they are talking about values we would expect to see in any works canteen, working men’s club or football terrace. Same with racism, the most racist people I knew were all labour voters for example. No-one on the front bench would have any truck with overt racism among members, the would be expelled, not portrayed as victims, expelled.

Labour has carried the torch against these views against views in the face of opposition among their own support. They arguably lost two, possibly three elections standing on a platform of unilateral nuclear disarmament. They have campaigned against apartheid as well as against the death penalty. They introduced Atos and gave them generous incentive packages to find as many people as possible ‘fit for work’.

So, yes the ‘Left’ does tackle its own supporters, all too often in fact. Something that can rarely be said for the Tory scum. No position is too right wing for these bastards. The ‘Hang Mandela’ shirts may be hidden at the back of the closets, but the smirking faces that used to display them are to be found dotted all over the Party to this day.

Sigh, Guttman, I’m not a Tory. I’m a libertarian, libertine, whatever.
I think you are more likely to be rightist libertarian but whatever.

Sites that show how to make explosives? Sure, legal. Snuff movies? Urban legend. Paedo sites? Illegal to produce, so irrelevant to censorship issues. That is, it’s not illegal to show photos of people being murdered, but since it is illegal to murder people, you don’t need to censor, because the production itself is illegal.

So no, there is no need to censor any of those types of sites.

As to who wants censroship, there is a constant drumbeat from the reactionary wings of both left and right. On the right, is the legacy of the Mary Whitehouse tendency; on the Left is a powerful coalition ranging from the deranged wing of feminism to Mumsnet. It was the “left” Labour Party who brought in the recent lunatic law against “underage” cartoons, for instance, not “Murdoch”.

“Left” and “Right” tend to be astonishingly similar when it comes to puritanical issues. Anyway, in this case it is clear that the “Left” see an opportunity to censor “right wing” political speech and are pushing for it.

Ian
In the post you blame the left, especially this site.
1. It might have passed you by but we have right wing government who will not be listening to LC or any left of centre blog.
2. In the past it was right governments that made actors voice politcal organisations.
3. If there is a banning of sites it will come from pressure of the right wing press..
4. The left has very little power in voicing opinion, most polutcail blogs are rightist, most of the money is right based, most journos are rightists, nearly all papers are rightist (only one didn’e back the coalition), most broadcasters I know are right of centre. How on earth does Sunny or his ilk going to ban these sites.
5. It was rightists like yourself who wanted to ban Islamic sites and speakers. Even press TV
6. Also I don’t want banning but the pressure will come from the moral majority. the inderage campaign came from the daily mail moral majority, a group that scares all governments, even you present one.

I’ve described the BNP as dangerous clowns for years, and the EDL has rapidly exceeded their trajectory.

@98 – So when you can’t shut down the paedo-picture producers because you don’t know where they are, or because the local authorities have been paid off? The UK’s system works quite well, given viewing the pictures is a strict liability offence, for preventing accidental and grief-linking.

(What, you think people wouldn’t try and get other people into trouble for strict liability offences? Hah)

So when you can’t shut down the paedo-picture producers because you don’t know where they are, or because the local authorities have been paid off? The UK’s system works quite well, given viewing the pictures is a strict liability offence, for preventing accidental and grief-linking.
That wasn’t my view but Ians

I do apoligize I am slightly short sighted so I didn’t proof read my post
Ian
In the post you blame the left, especially this site.
1. It might have passed you by but we have right wing government who will not be listening to LC or any left of centre blog. More likely to listen to Conservative home or Iain Dale.
2. In the past it was right wing governments that made actors voice political organisations and wanted broadcasting banning orders.
3. If there is a banning of sites it will come from pressure of the right wing press.
4. The left has very little power in voicing opinion.
Most polittical blogs are rightist, most of the money in the UK is in the hands of the right , most journos are rightists, nearly all papers are rightist (only one didn’t back the coalition), most broadcasters I know are right of centre. How on earth does Sunny or any of his ilk going get the political clout to ban these sites. Please don’t say the BBC, if you do please give some evidence
5. It was rightists, like Mel P who wanted to ban Islamic sites and speakers. Even press TV. My view is she not a hate speaker just like many on this site, hypocritical
6. Also I don’t want banning but the pressure will come from the moral majority. The underage campaign came from the Daily Mail moral majority, not known to be an organ of the left, a group that scares all governments, even your present one.

So when you can’t shut down the paedo-picture producers because you don’t know where they are, or because the local authorities have been paid off?

Then it’s a crime outside your jurisdiction, and there’s nothing you can do, just as you can’t prosecute a murder in a foreign land even if you think the local authorities haven’t dealt with it properly.

The UK’s system works quite well, given viewing the pictures is a strict liability offence, for preventing accidental and grief-linking.

The UK system arbitrarily criminalises photographs and has given us an uncontrolled mutaween operating beyond public scrutiny. It is classic persecution for possession, of a victimless crime, as with the drugs laws. We’re now sending people to prison for drawings and cartoons thanks to Harriet Harman and the deranged wing of the feminist movement. The whole thing is out of control and far beyond what the common law of a liberal democracy should be concerning itself with.

We’re now sending people to prison for drawings and cartoons thanks to Harriet Harman and the deranged wing of the feminist movement. The whole thing is out of control and far beyond what the common law of a liberal democracy should be concerning itself with.
Also who is in jail from this crime ?
Why does the present right wing government stop this law ?

Why does (“doesn’t”?) the present right wing government stop this law ?

Because the Left and Right unify on puritan issues, which is one reason that I AM NOT RIGHT WING.

This is why I said earlier you need to stop thinking everyone is in one or the other camp; there are more choices than two in life. I used to think I was left wing, because I most definitely wasn’t right wing (a conservative). Then I came to understand that “my side” were doing as much damage as “the other side”, and then I found out I was neither left wing nor right wing; I am instead a liberal. Or libertarian. Or libertine. Take your pick.

You can’t understand the world if you only divide it into two optional worldviews. There are more.

@102 – So because criminals are outside your grasp, you don’t act against them?

You don’t freeze the bank accounts of dictators, as a clear example, under your ideology. What nonsense.

By conflating this with the idioticy of *actual* victimless crimes like “extreme” drawings (which I have always opposed), you do a massive disservice to and weaken the case against the abolition of those laws (Not to mention the idioticy of it being a crime to photograph some things which it’s perfectly legal to DO).

The IWF is a very light touch compared to most Western nation’s schemes, and it has successfully headed off multiple attempts for stronger regulation.

Ian
Of course life is not black and white and most of us have political views that shift on the continuum.
For instance I have mainly left of centre views but on immigration I differ. Not on cultural grounds because I believe culture is dynamic, if it wasn’t we would still be placing wode on our faces. But we have finite resources and there is a limit to what we can support.
But we do collectively group our selves, if we didn’t our electoral system would collapse. You cannot have 55 million political parties however laudable.
I would say by reading your posts that you have very few left of centre views, you would vote for a right wing libertarian party.
Nothing wrong with that. You just have you have to honest with others including fellow posters.

You don’t freeze the bank accounts of dictators, as a clear example, under your ideology. What nonsense.

Er, no, it’s the idea of a “jurisdiction”. You know the idea, laws apply to the community who have agreed to live under those laws, like a nation or whatever.

By conflating this with the idioticy of *actual* victimless crimes like “extreme” drawings (which I have always opposed), you do a massive disservice to and weaken the case against the abolition of those laws (Not to mention the idioticy of it being a crime to photograph some things which it’s perfectly legal to DO).

Looking at a picture is not a crime. Taking it may be. There really is a difference.

The IWF is a very light touch compared to most Western nation’s schemes, and it has successfully headed off multiple attempts for stronger regulation.

It may be a “light touch” but we’ll see how that develops over the coming years. What we do know is that it is an arbitrary censorship authority, which is incompatible with the concept of a liberal society. And, we know that Britain has generally been a very heavily censored society in recent decades (remember the Video Recordings Act?). The simple fact remains that there is no need for it, and it is time we said that loudly and clearly rather than being browbeaten into accepting censorship by the yellow press, selfish pressure groups and frightened politicians.

All you’re doing is restating the long-understood political wisdom that the future has a noticeable liberal bias.

That may be true in cultural terms (although the future’s not written yet, and there an awful lot of counter-revolutionaries around now sadly), but it certainly isn’t true in economic terms – if, that is, you’re using ‘liberal’ in the US sense. Views that would have been considered extremely out of the mainstream 50 years ago are now not just mainstream, but so entrenched that opposition to them is seen as eccentric to the point of madness.

Who now argues (as was once agreed by almost everybody) that we should have capital controls, or a price and incomes policy, or that the Government should run the steel industry, or the road haulage industry, or even that we should have a fixed exchange rate? There were people back in the 50s and 60s who advocated the abolition of some or all of these things, but they were considered so off-the-wall as to not be taken seriously.

There’s a nice little paradox – 50 years ago there was consensus about the means of travel, but divergence about the destination. Now there is consensus about the destination, but divergence about the means of travel.

Two things that must be seen as encouraging then, one’s already happened, one may be about to. The first is the spread of mobile phones in Africa – taking power away from parastatal telecoms companies and removing the need for extensive infrastructure. The second may be the spread of cheap micro-electric generation, through solar power for example, which again removes the need for (inefficient or non-existent) state infrastructure.

And surely politics is about the intersection of culture and economics?

@108 – Again, rot. Countries have interests in their citizens which go beyond their
borders. The internet doesn’t respect those borders.

And no, in the UK looking at certain photos as well as taking them of some kinds of “extreme” acts is a crime, because it’s based on the impression of the viewer, not what’s actually going on. So one photo of a set might break the rules…

As to the IWF – they have refused, repeatedly, to change how they work. Attacks on it simply strengthen the case for replacing it with mandatory government-run and hence politically-controlled regulations (the IWF is ISP run, given it was introduced to fend off legislation, I’d not call it “voluntary”).

And no, in the UK looking at certain photos as well as taking them of some kinds of “extreme” acts is a crime, because it’s based on the impression of the viewer, not what’s actually going on. So one photo of a set might break the rules…

Which is, I am sure you agree, a ludicrous kind of law to have, which is why they all need sweeping from the statute books. When I said “one is crime and one isn’t” I wasn’t talking of how the law is, I meant what is a crime in the sense of natural justice. I.e. sodomy was a crime in a legal sense, but not in the sense of justice. So, I meant, “should not be against the law”.

(the IWF is ISP run, given it was introduced to fend off legislation, I’d not call it “voluntary”)

Indeed. ISPs and anyone else should not be put in the position of having to jump through hoops to “fend off legislation”. ISPs are now being “asked” to introduce an adult material “opt in” system, in the same way as a mafiosi “asks” for a donation. We need severe curbs on (a) the ability of the parliament to easily pass legislation and (b) the ability of ministers etc to lean on the citizens in this manner. The State is out of control, and has been for some decades now.

Two things that must be seen as encouraging then, one’s already happened, one may be about to. The first is the spread of mobile phones in Africa – taking power away from parastatal telecoms companies and removing the need for extensive infrastructure. The second may be the spread of cheap micro-electric generation, through solar power for example, which again removes the need for (inefficient or non-existent) state infrastructure.

Yes, absolutely. Between 1991 and 1995 one of the things the Ghanaians were doing was building a point-to-point 155Mb microwave radio backbone around the country which people could use by going into booths at the local post office. Very quickly these radio masts became mobile-phone towers as the tech became cheap enough. It’s been very encouraging to received texts from my dad from his mud hut over the years. And I grew up entirely under solar power, in so far as electricity was used, so I’ve been on that page since long before I got involved with sustainability politics.

And surely politics is about the intersection of culture and economics?

*heh* I think we would both like it to be, but in practice it is often the intersection between nostalgic bigotry and violent tribalism.